Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Profanity-laced GQ article on Rand

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The operative word is "intensely" and in proportion to the actions and character of the object being hated.

Even then, I can't picture a psychologically healthy Objectivist taking the time to type a 6-page incoherent bitch-fest against Kant.

Of course not, but that is beside the question. You are speaking of intensity. A rational man can experience hatred in a much more intensive manner than the one you presented in your example, and still appreciate himself in a positive way. Writing articles is not the only possible outcome of feeling hatred intensively. The statement from your first post is fallacious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not, but that is beside the question. You are speaking of intensity. A rational man can experience hatred in a much more intensive manner than the one you presented in your example, and still appreciate himself in a positive way. Writing articles is not the only possible outcome of feeling hatred intensively. The statement from your first post is fallacious.

And if the hatred is irrational?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also saw that magazine recomend Kenneth Cole suits. Now that's both profane and offensive!

Err, right... article about Ayn Rand... Looks like it follows the old imbecille critique formula A1, which is like taking a dump and trying to pass it off as intelligent. Boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
I honestly like reading/hearing positions opposite to my own.

I sincerely wish someone would write a critique of Objectivism that didn't come off as either sour grapes from personal matters or as a monkey flinging poo.

There actually is one, only one, source of critique on Oism (or Atlas Shrugged specifically, rather) that I have encountered that sounded neutral and unbiased, from a guy who sounds genuinely smart about what he's talking about. Unfortunately, he's dead.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/201..._atlas_shrugged

As for the hatred, it's not necessarily a symptom of hating oneself. It's a symptom of hating the good for being the good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

That is off the subject. We are focusing on the intensity of the hatred. However, it makes no difference at all. You are claiming as a fact of reality that no one can experience hatred intensively without hating himself. This is certainly false, but never mind. There is no need to make a fuss about this.

Thank you for your 'That is off the subject'. It is so frustrating to constantly meet with your opponent's irrelevant style of argument.

Edited by dreadrocksean
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/2009...ks-fountainhead

Wow. You just can't hate someone this intensely without hating yourself first.

No you can not! You can't even buy that magazine without hating yourself intensely first.

Man, that is GQ, a publication dedicated to tell the already "hip" man how to be more "hip". Replace "hip" for whatever politically correct term might be in use today. Is it back to "cool"?

In downright authoritarian regimes these sorts of "tips", from what shoes are "in" and what politicians are "out", would be called guidelines for citizen etiquette if not simply propaganda.

It is admirable however how the American system works, having the private sector do the state's work, like propaganda under a Fascist regime, and still bleeding that same private sector dry with socialist excuses.

Here in Argentina since the last president made a Chavez on the press, the government has to pay for its own morning publication out of "its" "own" pockets. So every morning when I buy whatever subjected to VAT, like coffee, I'm paying more than the regular price of a journal of my choice, and I receive a "free" morning copy of "El Argentino", CFK's Pravda.

As I recently read somewhere (B.A. Herald?) regarding Healthcare Reform, Americans are deciding whether Congress has the right to force citizens into buying something for their own good. Well in practice it's happening already only under a more sophisticated guise.

Despite old Truman Capote cliches, Argentina is less sophisticated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4That boy (or you, or I) can dismiss the books as a "phase" and attempt to busy ourselves with the kind of degenerate "stylists" Rand scorned (Faulkner, Nabokov). But none of us can escape the shadow of the lone straight shaft of the Taggart Building tumescing in the distance.

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead#ixzz1PFa48S00

Ok under all the profanity it seems that the author person responsible for that article is simply very frustrated with his own short-comings and haunted by the self he could have been - and blames Rand only because she made EXPLICIT every single point he accuses her of.

Wow this has strengthened my blind faith in Ayn Rand's teachings like no rational argument could have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/2009...ks-fountainhead

Wow. You just can't hate someone this intensely without hating yourself first.

Thanks for the link, Mister A.

I'd be interested in seeing somebody respond to what I saw as one of the main claims of the article. I interpret it thusly: "Students typically get their first serious reality check about their intelligence and ability in college, so they are particularly vulnerable to Rand's worldview, which allows them to have self esteem and a sense of certainty. As a byproduct of their adoption of Rand's worldview, they lose some creativity and, to some extent, the ability to think critically."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be interested in seeing somebody respond to what I saw as one of the main claims of the article.... "... As a byproduct of their adoption of Rand's worldview, they lose some creativity and, to some extent, the ability to think critically."
I have not watched the video, so I'm responding only to your question.

This accusation can be brought, and has been brought, against any methodology. For instance consider claims that the classical canonical approach to some art stifled artists. Similarly, in software development, someone will come up with a set of principles to address some area where approaches are haphazard. The methodology might see widespread adoption because people see it as organizing previously-disorganized learning into a system that can be followed. Yet, a few years later, other will say that following the methodology "blindly" stifles creativity and has poorer results.

This accusation is often valid against some bodies of knowledge, or against some parts of bodies of knowledge, or in some applications. In fact, the accusation can be broadened beyond just methodological/behavioral advice. One could make this accusation of any knowledge. For instance, one might say that an invalid Theory of Heat stifled scientist who might otherwise have figured out the correct theory.

So, yes, it does happen that theories and apparent knowledge turn out to be untrue, or that they are misapplied. However, to make a specific claim about a specific theory, one has to address that theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...